Thissen: We Need to 'Negotiate the Best Deal for Minnesotans'—Not the Vikings

Admitting the Vikings' importance to Minnesota, the House Minority Leader still contends the state has higher priorities than a new stadium.

Debate over building a new stadium for the Minnesota Vikings continues to gain momentum as various business and community groups, along with a host of state lawmakers, weigh in with plans on where the stadium should be located and how it might be funded. With so much at stake—including construction costs estimated between $900 million and $1.1 billion, and what many say is a legitimate threat that current Vikings' owners Mark and Zygi Wilf could relocate the team to Los Angeles—Richfield Patch caught up with House Minority Leader Paul Thissen (D-Richfield/Minneapolis) via e-mail to get his take on the issue.

Richfield Patch: What is your position regarding the stadium?

Rep. Paul Thissen: The Vikings are a public asset to our state in many ways, large and small, and we should act prudently and responsibly to keep the team—and the jobs that go along with it—in Minnesota on terms that make sense for the State of Minnesota. I am committed to that and I'm open to a prudent investment of public dollars to do so. The most important thing for me is that we as state leaders actually negotiate the best deal we can for Minnesota and do not simply accept the Vikings' terms. ...

Personally, building a stadium does not rank with education, transportation infrastructure and health care as a priority. Investment in those areas will do more to build our long-term success as a state. That said, I do not want to fall into the trap of an either/or argument. I have long been willing to—and have voted to—raise revenues to fund those important priorities and I will continue to advocate for those investments regardless of how the stadium debate turns out.

Richfield Patch: In a press conference last week Gov. Dayton called on “leaders of the Legislature to show some leadership” in order to get a new stadium built. With concerns about the issue mounting, as House Minority Leader what will you be emphasizing in the coming weeks and months?

Thissen: The Democrats in the House do not have a "caucus position" on the stadium. There will be Democrats who will vote for it and Democrats who vote against it. More than anything, it is important we have a robust public debate and public input. That is critical. Minnesotans deserve the opportunity to view the specifics of any stadium proposal and have time to weigh in. As minority leader and as a state representative, I will communicate to the public as specific details of a stadium proposal develop.

Richfield Patch: What are the most significant barriers legislators will need to overcome if a new stadium is going to be built?

Thissen: The first barrier to overcome is for the Republican majority to come forward with a stadium proposal. Republican legislators in the House and Senate have indicated they will author stadium legislation, but have not yet come forward with the specifics of their plan.

Richfield Patch: A number of plans—including racinos, sales tax increases, and even public ownership of the team—have been floated by legislators and others as a means of funding a new stadium. Is there a position or plan you support over others?

Thissen: If a stadium proposal is brought forward, Minnesotans should expect it to be a serious proposal. Serious in the Legislature means that a proposal can get 68 votes—enough to pass. Speaker of the House Kurt Zellers has said that racino/casino proposals do not have enough votes to pass. Historically they have not had enough support. As such, I do not believe these to be serious options. I also believe that Legacy funds are not an appropriate financing mechanism because raiding dedicated funds for unintended purposes is unwise and unfair to Minnesota voters.

Michele November 16, 2011 at 02:00 PM
The Vikings are a statewide asset and funding should reflect that. A new stadium is important but should be well negotiated for the public's benefit and should not just reflect the preferences of the private owner. A Minneapolis site would be the most cost effective location with the most existing infrastructure already in place. Rep. Thissen's position seems thoughtful and appropriate.
Dennis Gillespie November 16, 2011 at 02:29 PM
I think if the Vikings are such a good asset they should be able to stand on their own and private money should build the stadium. It is shown that a Profeswsional Team do not improve the local econonmy, it just takes money away from other venues. Building these stadiums is call corporate welfare.
Robert November 16, 2011 at 04:36 PM
"Personally, building a stadium does not rank with education, transportation infrastructure and health care as a priority. " This is the best statement I've heard a politician make in a long time. I'm glad our Representative has the right priorities.
Kevin O'Donovan November 16, 2011 at 05:31 PM
Why would the Vikes move to L.A. and be burdened with more government regulations and higher taxes than even Mn.? Didn't the St.L Rams leave L.A. for that reason? If the S.F. Giants can build a beautiful stadium with private financing , so should the Vikings. Congrats to the Vikes on leading the NFL in arrests.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »